The groups currently drafting new science standards for American classrooms have decided to include a section addressing the issue of climate change. The Congressionally chartered National Academies, including the National Research Council, plan to include a document drafted last year that says that human activities have at least a partial impact on climate.

Although there’s a strong consensus in scientific literature on anthropogenic climate change, in America the issue is a source of significant controversy and debate. Just how strident the debate over climate change had become came as a surprise to one California middle school teacher:

When Treena Joi, a teacher at Corte Madera School in Portola Valley, Calif., last year showed her sixth-grade students the global-warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth”a documentary in which former Vice President Al Gore issues dire warnings about climate changethe drama quickly spread beyond the classroom.

A father filed a formal complaint accusing Ms. Joi of “brainwashing” the students. He demanded that she apologize to her students or be fired, according to the complaint. The local school superintendent settled the matter by requiring parental permission before students viewed the movie in the future and prohibiting teachers from talking about ways to address climate change.

Ms. Joi said that this was the first time she’d been confronted by such extreme parental reaction, even though in the past she taught other subjects generally considered controversial such as evolution and sex education.

While the battle between global warming supporters and skeptics rages on in state houses, court houses, news programs and everywhere in between, it’s no wonder that school teachers have felt more than once that they are caught in the middle.

When her daughter’s ninth-grade teacher mimicked a gagging motion when discussing climate change during science class in Clifton Park, N.Y, Kimberly Danforth complained to the school science advisor for redress.

The teacher explained he was playing devil’s advocate and actually believed in mainstream climate-change theories, but Ms. Danforth, who believes children should be taught about global warming, wasn’t persuaded. “He seemed to be thumbing his nose at our values,” she said.

David Wojick, who is leading the effort, backed by a Conservative think tank the Heartland Institute, to design a scientific curriculum that challenges the conventional view of global warming, says that schools shouldn’t be seeking to teach only one side of the debate, but instead to offer a balanced view that will allow students to reach their own conclusions. Arguments like these are very familiar to Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education which has previously opposed efforts to introduce Intelligent Design into science classrooms around the country.

Like evolution, climate change is “settled science,” said Scott. “We shouldn’t fight the culture wars in the high-school classroom.”

(Ms. Joi said that this was the first time shed been confronted by such extreme parental reaction)

Those poor, poor teachers keep complaining that parents just don’t get involved in their children’s education. However, when parents have a problem with an obvious one-sided propaganda movie being shown to their kids, they start belly-aching about parental “extreme” reactions. Some of the teachers themselves are so brainwashed, and have so little contact with conservatives, that they seem genuinely surprised about the reactions.

Our highly trained government education professionals are taught to deal with complaints by saying “That’s the first time has anyone has complained.” The point is to make the parent feel isolated and insecure.

6
posted on 03/14/2012 2:10:12 PM PDT
by achilles2000
("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")

Although theres a strong consensus in scientific literature on anthropogenic climate change,

I stopped reading there. I keep hearing about this mythical "scientific consensus," but nobody ever produces a list and headcount the scientists who support anthropogenic climate change.

Meanwhile, I've got 30,000 scientists who signed a public petition rejecting the theory -- and that was back in 2007 BEFORE Climategates I & II, and the collapse of the IPCC's credibility.

If the Global Warming Alarmists in and out of the media are so damned concerned with "facts" as they claim they are, why will they not prove the "fact" that there is a consensus by ponying up some proof of that assertion.

8
posted on 03/14/2012 2:15:14 PM PDT
by Maceman
(Liberals' only problem with American slavery is that the slaves were privately owned.)

They should only teach it in POLITICAL SCIENCE COURSES, or
courses that deal in POLITICAL FRAUD. If you question most anybody that believes in Climate Change for 5 minutes you will find out they have no clue about any of it other than reading the headlines of the newspapers. After the obama regime is voted out on their rear end we should pursue legal action against any government officials using
fraudulent IPCC data to fund grants and form public policy

Exactly right. More disgusting than the economic damage being done by global warming hysteria is the damage to science itself.

"Settled science" like Newton's Laws of Motion is never defended with the weak and unscientific argument that it's settled science [Argumentum ad populum - where an idea is claimed to be true solely because many people allegedly believe it to be so]. Newton's Laws were defended with publicly available experimental data and precise measurement accessible to any scientist . . . until Einstein refined them by finding a more broadly applicable and accurate theory. The settled medical science on gastric freezing for ulcers and on the cause of ulcers was also defended by objective research with published and public data . . . until Barry Marshall and Robin Warren identified Helicobacter pylori as the real cause and eliminated their own profession. Similarly for hormone replacement therapy and cancer risk, for Ptolemy and Copernicus, for whether Pluto is a planet or just Mickey Mouse's dog, for earth/air/fire/water,

and the rest of the theories . . . back when science was based on the Scientific Method instead of political pull.

17
posted on 03/14/2012 2:39:49 PM PDT
by Pollster1
(Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)

Naturally caused fires are essential to a balanced and healthy ecosystem.

In many cases, the heat from fire causes seeds to germinate, promoting the growth of various plants and fauna.

The lack of naturally occurring fires is primarily why many of the recent fires were so devastating. The undergrowth and dead wood hadn’t been cleared out, creating firestorms of epic proportions.

The “enviroidiots”, envirowhackos, environazis, etc. won’t permit the USFS to conduct controlled burns to clear this stuff out. And when firefighters or residents are killed, hundreds of structures burned to the ground and 100’s of millions of dollars spent on putting out fires, they are “strangely silent”.

There is quite a large difference between conservationists and environmentalists.

18
posted on 03/14/2012 2:45:55 PM PDT
by SZonian
(Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)

When my daughter entered the junior high school there was one teacher who was known to be a big global warming alarmist. She was known for talking about it every chance she had, in History class no less. Every year she used to show “An Inconvenient Truth”. I made it known that If she did that I was going to demand that she also show “The Great Global Warming Hoax” as balance since global warming was a controversial subject. Earth day came and went with no showing of “An Inconvenient Truth” and as far as I know it hasn’t been shown since.

Another place they slip in AGW propaganda is in standardized tests. I also went in and complained about that. It’s funny because at least in the elementary school the kids aren’t taught about it. So, the kids are being tested on things they didn’t have in the class but the test only allows one answer to all the questions, pro AGW.

The above thread does not have a very illuminating title ...but believe me it will make your Hair Stand Up....and explains why the Kiddies MUST believe the Leftists Propaganda ...for their Global Scheme to work!!!

The only thing settled in anthropogenic climate change is that there is no consensus except among those who conspire (out of their desire for job security) to extort grant money from the tax-payers to fund their pet theory. Those who study the actual data are far from arriving at any consensus over AGW . . . err, excuse me ACC (its latest incarnation) . . . only those who believe in the goal driven computer models believe there is any consensus. That is because computer models only tell you what the biases of the modeler are. The data dont support the claims and anyone who spends a modicum of time studying the issue rather than blindly believing what faux scientists like Mann and Jones tell them understands that fact. Science, by definition is never settled. Only religious tenets, based on mythology are settled.

The best way to fight these lying proselytizers of the religion of global warming is by confronting them on their own websites.

Anyone who would call either evolution or climate change "settled science" is no scientist.

AGW is total junk 'political science".

I personally have no problem with evolution.. I learned about it via studying the experiments of the Monk, Gregory Mendel, when I was in Catholic school 50 years ago.

The Church has no problem with the theory of evolution. They only insist that God is the Creator. That species can change over time is not a shocker - we can plainly see it.

In that school, at that time, we also learned quite a bit about Creation, including daily recitations of the Apostles Creed. I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth...Knowing science, a Creator also make perfect sense. Nothing comes from nothing and there is no infinity. Matter, time and space are all connected -- all one, and have a beginning.... and an end.

I accept both Creation and Evolution and they are in no way incompatible. I see both as true and logical. And so do millions of other faithful.

If you are a 'young earth believer and want to take King James word-for-word, " that's fine. Believe as you wish. It is your freedom to do so.

But please, quit being sucked in by the the leftist game (as you can see in the above article) of comparing the bogus science of Man Made Global Warming with Evolution. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Believe what you wish about evolution, but please, stop comparing it to this current 'political science' fraud.

Our Creator could make us in any way He so chose to make us, If it took six days of 6 billion years, I don't really give a damn, and wouldn't presume to tell Him how He should have done it. It's a meaningless thing to argue about. People of Good Faith can be anywhere on that argument, and honestly, most people of faith do not disagree with evolution and it is not an affront to their faith.

But the leftist push to take control with this Global Warming scam is a clear and present danger to all of our freedoms. When you allow it to be mixed up with evolution, you are giving the leftist power mongers more ammunition to paint opponents as ignorant and anti-science!

AGW has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. Don't make that comparison and don't allow others to make it either.

I have no idea what you're talking about. My claim is that neither is "settled science". Once we think that we're "done" because the issue has been "settled", scientific investigation stops.

Only two questions in reply...

1. Do you think God could have done this Creation we all enjoy over the course of Billions of years via many stages and gradual changes ... or does that Creation have to confirm to a 'short earth' time line that a literal reading of Genesis provides?

2. If He had taken billions of years instead of a few thousand years, would you love Him any less?

And I'll add my warning from before. If you allow the Global Warming Crap to be confused with evolution, you only give more power to the Godless people who push this Global Warming BS.

Believe what you want. But the two topics have zero to do with each other. Don't Compare Them!

1. Do you think God could have done this Creation we all enjoy over the course of Billions of years via many stages and gradual changes ... or does that Creation have to confirm to a 'short earth' time line that a literal reading of Genesis provides?

God could have done whatever He wanted, and He told us what He did in Genesis. Question to you, do you think that God could have told us how He created everyting by having it written in a book? Do you believe that His enemies would work to discredit that book?

2. If He had taken billions of years instead of a few thousand years, would you love Him any less?

Certainly not.

It really matters little what God could have done. What matters is the truth. However, you're completely missing my point. Even a staunch evolutionist who understands science would not call evolution "settled science". Believe what you want, but I'm not the one who compared them in the first place, it was stated in the article.

35
posted on 03/16/2012 6:42:29 AM PDT
by Sopater
(...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.